Breaking: Boots to be put on the ground in Iraq (AP)

[Deus Naturae]

Very stupid decision.

I agree, we should leave our embassy undefended.

No, we should get our embassy out of that hellhole and not risk soldiers' lives.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Saddam was a vile piece of s**t and I doubt anyone would seriously contest this fact. Yet, 2003 invasion on Iraq was a horrid mistake.

[TNF]

Another terrible decision from our terrible commander-in-chief. The best solution to this whole problem would be to immediately remove all U.S. residual forces from Iraq and let the Iraqi people figure this out on their own.

But of course that doesn't involve killing a lot of people and/or could threaten the profits of American oil companies, so there's absolutely no chance of that happening. (Oh, and of course, the Israelis are probably scared to death of this whole thing, which means that, whatever logic to the contrary, the U.S. will intervene to satisfy the needs of the local racist settler state in the region)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't get the whole fuss over putting a very small contingent, largely to protect the embassy.

[TJ in Oregon]

Ahh that explains the anti-war protesters I passed on the way home today. I was wondering why Afghanistan suddenly became so unpopular.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

History tells us that something little like "embassy defense" is just the beginning. Look at Vietnam.

[TNF]

History tells us that something little like "embassy defense" is just the beginning. Look at Vietnam.

Ding ding ding.

Also, why on Earth would anyone believe the U.S. government claiming that it's all about defending an embassy or whatever it is today? It's not like this administration is known for being open or honest, and it's certainly not like the U.S. government has never lied about foreign policy maneuvers before.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

We need a Saddam Hussein Blingee to complement the Milosevic one for every smug apologist for tyrants who revel in any level of violence and carnage provided they can use it to prove a fuzzy political point. There's a disturbing trend where people fetishise murderous dictators based on some hyper-bourgeois notion of "stability".

That moment when an anti-saggery crusader becomes so invested and turns into a sage on his own.

History tells us that something little like "embassy defense" is just the beginning. Look at Vietnam.

Are you seriously expecting Obama to get the United States fully re-involved in Iraq months before the midterms?

History does not always repeat itself. At least not in the very same fashion.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

ITT: Socialists cheering on the rise of extremist theocratic reactionaries because they'll stick it to America.

That sound you hear is Marx rolling in his grave.

[Lief 🗽]

ITT: Socialists cheering on the rise of extremist theocratic reactionaries because they'll stick it to America.

Yes, true leftism is truly a disgusting, immoral and barbaric ideology. Every week they seem to find a new tyrannical death cult to rally around.

[TNF]

ITT: Socialists cheering on the rise of extremist theocratic reactionaries because they'll stick it to America.

That sound you hear is Marx rolling in his grave.

The 1980s called, they want their imperialist talking points back.

Lecture me more on Marxism when you graduate the ninth grade, kid.

[Cassius]

I'm not really sure as to why some people think that Iraq would have been so much more stable if we had left Saddam Hussein in charge. I mean, there would probably have been uprisings against him, beginning at around the same time as all of the other protests during the 'Arab spring'. Indeed, there would probably have been religious rebels, only of a Shia, not Sunni, variety (who would probably have been backed by Iran). Assad failed to nip his own rebelion in the bud, which can be seen by the ongoing civil war in Syria which shows no sign of ending. I fail to see how it would have been any different in Iraq with Saddam in power, aside from whom precisely the rebels were.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm not really sure as to why some people think that Iraq would have been so much more stable if we had left Saddam Hussein in charge. I mean, there would probably have been uprisings against him, beginning at around the same time as all of the other protests during the 'Arab spring'. Indeed, there would probably have been religious rebels, only of a Shia, not Sunni, variety (who would probably have been backed by Iran). Assad failed to nip his own rebelion in the bud, which can be seen by the ongoing civil war in Syria which shows no sign of ending. I fail to see how it would have been any different in Iraq with Saddam in power, aside from whom precisely the rebels were.

Even if somehow it's not much difference, at least we wouldn't have pissed away over $1 trillion and several thousand American lives looking like asses to the whole world.

[Tender Branson]

I don't get the whole fuss over putting a very small contingent, largely to protect the embassy.

[angus]

I don't get the whole fuss over putting a very small contingent, largely to protect the embassy.

I think people are conflating this with the discussions of air support for the Iraqis against ISIS.  They jumble it all together in their minds. 

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Another prudent move by the Obama administration.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't get the whole fuss over putting a very small contingent, largely to protect the embassy.

Because the Obama haters are increasingly deranged.

[bballrox4717]

The people who are decrying this move and saying that we should remove all embassy personnel make me sick.

We are literally the only force in Iraq that's actively encouraging and trying to leverage al-Maliki to include Sunnis in his government so that ISIS isn't the leader of a Sunni-Shia civil war, which would completely damage US national security in the worst way since the immediate months leading up to 9-11. The Obama administration is literally trying to do this in every possible way except for military intervention.

Letting Iran figure this out by themselves isn't going to make things better. Their number one interest is to give al-Maliki as much power as possible and to defend Shia Islam. They don't give a damn about the interests of Sunnis in the country, and there are still some very bloody memories of the Iran-Iraq War that will mobilize Sunnis towards ISIS.

Trying to figure this out diplomatically by staying in Iraq and protecting our diplomats militarily is clearly the best option. It can even be a historical opportunity to create better relations with Iran if we can figure out a solution that keeps the Shia in power yet give Sunnis a voice. Iran is only in there because al-Maliki is under a real threat right now. They have no reason to be there as soon as his government is safe.

[Oakvale]

The people who are decrying this move and are saying that we should remove all embassy personnel make me sick.

We are literally the only force in Iraq that's actively encouraging and trying to leverage al-Maliki to include Sunnis in his government so that ISIS isn't the leader of a Sunni-Shia civil war, which would completely damage US national security in the worst way since the immediate months leading up to 9-11. The Obama administration is literally trying to do this in every possible way except for military intervention.

Letting Iran figure this out by themselves isn't going to make things better. Their number one interest is to give al-Maliki as much power as possible and to defend Shia Islam. They don't give a damn about the interests of Sunnis in the country, and there are still some very bloody memories of the Iran-Iraq War that will mobilize Sunnis towards ISIS.

Trying to figure this out diplomatically by staying in Iraq and protecting our diplomats militarily is clearly the best option. It can even be a historical opportunity to create better relations with Iran if we can figure out a solution that keeps the Shia in power yet give Sunnis a voice. Iran is only in there because al-Maliki is under a real threat right now. They have no reason to be there as soon as his government is safe.

Yes but Vietnam you see.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Hopefully along with the 300 or so troops they'll sprinkle in a few military advisors and intelligence people.......but yeah, nothing to get whooped up over.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

About time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty lame though. Bring out the drones.

I don't think ISIS needs any more of our help from above in recruiting people.

on the other hand we do need an embassy here and Obama wants to prevent another Benghazi so this move is perfectly understandable.

[Hatman 🍁]

Boots to put on the ground in Iraq? Poor monkey.

[Simfan34]

Obama is helpless against the true Sons of Mesopotamia inspired by the living spirit of the inheritor of Babylon, Field Marshal Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti, led by his true and loyal servant, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri the (formerly) Redhaired. Indeed, all efforts, in the face of Arab Socialist brotherhood, would be so futile at stopping another Benghazi-style incident that the U.S. imperialist forces should all leave the country and let the inevitable happen.

(Yes, that is a painting of Saddam.)

[Hamster]

ITT: Socialists cheering on the rise of extremist theocratic reactionaries because they'll stick it to America.

That sound you hear is Marx rolling in his grave.

The 1980s called, they want their imperialist talking points back.

Lecture me more on Marxism when you graduate the ninth grade, kid.

Check your privilege, ageist.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

ITT: Socialists cheering on the rise of extremist theocratic reactionaries because they'll stick it to America.

That sound you hear is Marx rolling in his grave.

The 1980s called, they want their imperialist talking points back.

Lecture me more on Marxism when you graduate the ninth grade, kid.

What are you even talking about? Iran? Because, and I know nuance is going to surprise you, but it's entirely possible for people to not like Khomeini/the Islamist revolution while still considering American meddling in Iran, to prop up the Shah they installed against the will of the Iranian people, a bad thing.

And if you're talking about Afghanistan, well, the extremist theocratic reactionaries were on the side of the U.S.. Surprising, considering the "NATO/Al-Qaeda axis" is something you learn about in Kneejerk Anti-Americanism 101.